I really believe this a phony movement by the political establishment and not grassroots contrived . Being a Democrat is not popular in many states like Arizona and Texas. It is a long shot they will be able to become their own state.I wonder if the motivation is more having to do with maintaining political control in the US Senate as the leftist democrats will be thrown out of office the next election. Fragmenting states creating new ones to maintain power really has me concerned.
There is a big difference between secession from state or declaring independence from a confederation. Democrat or Globalist want state hood like DC statehood and Puerto Rico being a state to ensure political power in the Senate so they can ram through anti freedom treaties like rights of the child and the UN Small Arms treaty to override the will of the people. The whole idea of Statehood I have my suspicions with because it is used to shift a balance of power in the US Senate. The Last time a part of the State broke off to form its own state I can recall and could be wrong is West Virginia because part of the state remained loyal to the Union during the War of Northern Aggression. The real power is in the Senate because they can confirm the judges and ratify treaties. It might be a power play. Will wait and see.
Southern Arizona breaking away from the rest of the state will not happen because there will be many hoops to jump through to make it happen and too many legal question. I do not call this a secessionist movement. I call it fragmenting the states gerrymandering the territories to ensure one party control the US Senate Seats and not a real genuine independence movement.I will let you decide.

3 comments:

What reason is there to allow pistols with huge capacity magazines? Can anyone say that a 30-round clip is any more effective in self-defense situations? Do statistics back that up? Anyone who needed to shoot so many bullets, one could argue, may no be defending themselves at all, particularly in crowded, urban environment. Instead, they'd be posing a danger to the community by shooting so many even--arguably--if their lives were at stake, and they could prevent being killed, they'd have no right to take innocent lives. I guess police officers train for this urban dynamic; let's leave just blazing away for the streets of Iraq.

I don't know how long a "self-defense" firefight needs to go on. Having the capacity doesn't mean it'll be used, of course, which is the real lesson of firearm use: responsibility exercised under sobriety with no malicious forethought.

I'd argue, a single pistol with a 7-round clip can do enough damage, at least to perform its self-defense mission. If we allow 30-round clips for pistols, that can do much greater harm due to its conceal-ability than a rifle, particularly two pistols.

Occasionally criminals will use very high capacity magazines. I'd say the end results aren't in their favor at least this side of the border. Judging from that bank robbery out in LA some years back, an extended firefight will be met with more force (although police did have to borrow high-powered rifles from a local gun dealer.)

The right to bear arms can be restricted so--as George Carlin said, what we call our rights aren't rights at all if they can be taken away.